Birthright Citizenship: They Won the Battle, but Not the War
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional right to citizenship, but three dissenting votes show that it could still be overturned in the future.
At first glance, President Donald Trump appears to have suffered a defeat. The Supreme Court rejected Trump’s executive order denying citizenship to people born in the U.S. whose parents are in the country without legal documentation or there temporarily. The high court ruled that the 14th Amendment is unambiguous and that every person born in America is a U.S. citizen. With very few exceptions.
Yet three conservative justices dissented. Among other grounds, the dissenting justices argued that the 14th Amendment was created to grant citizenship to freed slaves who had nowhere else to call home. People who were already citizens of a country would therefore be excluded.
A Potential Litmus Test
The dissenting votes against Trump’s order amending birthright citizenship, something on which there was actually a broad consensus, are viewed as a warning sign for the future. The arguments put forward by the dissenting conservative justices could form a blueprint for renewed attack on the constitutional provision. The issue could become a litmus test for future justices seeking to advance their careers.
The extreme right in the United States demonstrated the power of strategic judicial appointments in the fight over abortion rights. The only question that remains is when — and under which president — a seat on the bench will become vacant again.
At first glance, President Donald Trump appears to have suffered a defeat. The Supreme Court rejected Trump’s executive order denying citizenship to people born in the U.S. whose parents are in the country without legal documentation or there temporarily. The high court ruled that the 14th Amendment is unambiguous and that every person born in America is a U.S. citizen. With very few exceptions.
Yet three conservative justices dissented. Among other grounds, the dissenting justices argued that the 14th Amendment was created to grant citizenship to freed slaves who had nowhere else to call home. People who were already citizens of a country would therefore be excluded.
A Potential Litmus Test
The dissenting votes against Trump’s order amending birthright citizenship, something on which there was actually a broad consensus, are viewed as a warning sign for the future. The arguments put forward by the dissenting conservative justices could form a blueprint for renewed attack on the constitutional provision. The issue could become a litmus test for future justices seeking to advance their careers.
The extreme right in the United States demonstrated the power of strategic judicial appointments in the fight over abortion rights. The only question that remains is when — and under which president — a seat on the bench will become vacant again.
Previous article![]( "Were Trump’s Military Powers Revoked?")
Next article![]( "South Korea Must Reflect on America’s Untrustworthiness")